Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v Denson; Notice; People v Felton; Good-character jury instruction; Harmless error; Ineffective assistance of counsel as to a plea offer; People v Douglas; Sentencing; Consecutive sentences for possession-with-intent-to-deliver convictions; MCL 333.7401(3); People v Norfleet; Upward departure from the guidelines; Articulation of an adequate justification; Imposition of prison time for some convictions instead of an intermediate sanction; MCL 769.34(4)(a); Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence and that any error in declining to give a good-character jury instruction was harmless. It also rejected defendant’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective as to a plea offer. Further, the trial court did not err in “imposing consecutive sentences for his two possession-with-intent-to-deliver convictions.” But it did err in “imposing an upward-departure sentence without articulating adequate justification” and violated MCL 769.34(4)(a) in “imposing prison time for three of his convictions instead of an intermediate sanction without articulating reasonable grounds.” Thus, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (less than 50 grams), possession with intent to deliver fentanyl (less than 50 grams), bringing contraband into a correctional facility, possessing Suboxone, maintaining a drug house, and felony-firearm, but remanded as to his sentencing. He argued “the prosecution provided improper notice” of Facebook evidence and that this “evidence was not relevant and unfairly prejudicial.” The court disagreed, concluding the “Facebook evidence supported the elements of possession and intent” as to his possession with intent to deliver and felony-firearm charges. “Messages exchanged between defendant and several others, especially a potential purchaser on the day defendant was arrested, suggested that [he] possessed and intended to deliver illegal substances. Further, the videos supported [he] possessed large quantities of cash and a firearm. Officers testified that large amounts of currency were common among drug dealers. The prosecution articulated a proper noncharacter purpose for admission of” this evidence. The court further found that it was “material to the charges” and probative because it made “it more probable than not that defendant possessed narcotics and a firearm and intended to deliver the narcotics.” The court also concluded the “trial court gave ample reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences” and that the record supported its reasoning. But as to his fentanyl, contraband into jail, and Suboxone convictions, it remanded “for the trial court to either impose an intermediate sanction, or articulate on the record reasonable grounds for the prison sentence.” It also remanded for resentencing or articulation of the reasons for departure as to his maintaining a drug house conviction.